I guess there were so many clicks from this article that you just had to milk it some more?
I guess I don't blame you guys. The comments here should be as funny as the last article too. Is Santorum going to show up again?
Dating website OkCupid says it's "satisfied" that Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, but not everyone agrees, and Eich's decision hasn't spared the Firefox maker from calls for a boycott. Last week, OkCupid posted a message to its homepage urging Firefox users to switch to a different browser in …
Fundamentally, we have free speech, we can also (to some extent) vote with our money and consumer feet.
Brendan Eich, paid money in to lobby so that a sector of society shouldn't have certain rights, I support his right to do this 100%, but free speech doesn't come with a "- and can't be criticised for it" suffix, I can't force him to think differently, that's his choice, and his choice to attempt to impose his view on others.
The protesters against Brendan Eich, were doing exactly the same, instead of paying to have a sector of society denied rights, they boycotted (and encouraged others to boycott) a product he was subsequently associated with, I support this action 100% too.
Neither action or protest was illegal, but was one protest disproportionate to the other? lets compare them; a man lost a job (and may find it difficult to get another in the same salary range), that's a bit shitty, he attempted to prevent an entire sector of society from getting legal recognition of love, and (some may say) more importantly legal protection, pension sharing, next of kin etc. if it was disproportionate, perhaps he lost a little as a result of attempting to take away a lot from others?
As a private citizen he made a modest donation to a campaign for reasons he did not make public and presumably had no intention of disclosing except for donation laws. And none of which has anything to do with making a web browser. He should have told the protesters to go bother someone else.
The main issue that caused the whole controversy is that he was appointed CEO. For years he was CTO and nobody peeped a thing about his donation on Prop8. But the moment he gets into the CEO chair, he's able to manage donations for the Mozilla Foundation. Which means that coupled with his beliefs, he theoretically could have started making Mozilla give donations to groups like the "Kill the Gays" organization that caused the Chik-Fil-A controversy last year. In fact, that other scandal was uncovered because of that company's CEO speaking against same-sex marriage, which led to LGBT groups checking out where Chik-Fil-A donations were really going.
On the other side, Eich doesn't seem to have had the intention of steering Mozilla into 'fund the crazies' mode, so the pressure on demanding his resignation does seem to be overkill. His whole contribution was a relatively minor one, and it was made years ago. Views have changed in the years between, what some people did a couple of years ago might not be indicative of what they think right now. Maybe Eich's "mistake" was not to say he's no longer against same-sex marriage… but that was probably not a good reason for him to be pressured into resigning.
There's no doubt there is someone out there with a hit list based on contributions for or against whatever cause. Heck it's easy when all they have to do is compare today's headline with the database, both conveniently hosted at the LA Times for simple one stop sniping.
Meanwhile as both sides square off with boycotts at 10 paces everyone else just sees a bunch of extremists with nothing constructive to offer and rightly ignores the whole thing.
>>As a private citizen he made a modest donation to a campaign for reasons he did not make public and presumably had no intention of disclosing except for donation laws.
So imposing his bigotry is fine if you keep it a secret?
Lobbying for slavery to be re-introduced is OK, if you don't tell anyone?
Remember, this is not merely a "view" he tried to get the law changed.
>>And none of which has anything to do with making a web browser. He should have told the protesters to go bother someone else.
Yep, his views have nothing to do with a browser, but why is his view relevant to gay people either? unless he's actually gay why is his view relevant to the world?, nobody is forcing him to marry a man.
His protest and the activists protests follow the same form.
"....So imposing his bigotry...." Major fail - objection to gay marriage does not make you a homophobic bigot, not unles you want to contend that the gay people also opposed to gay marriage are also homophobic bigots. You have also failed to show any demonstration of bigotry by Eich in his position at Mozilla that might actually make him unsuitable for the role.
"....Remember, this is not merely a "view" he tried to get the law changed...." As was his democratic right and was supported by 52% of those Californians that voted. The whole reason Prop8 was raised was because a standing law was changed to allow gay marriage. What you are saying is that only people that agree with you should be allowed to change the law - a massive fail of despotic arrogance.
"....unless he's actually gay why is his view relevant to the world?...." Logical fail - I'm not a paedophile but I have pretty strongs views on how that is wrong, but according to your logic only paedophiles should be allowed to voice an opinion on the legal age of consent.
...I dont care what his/her personal beliefs are provided he leaves them at the door when he enters the company building.
But using a position within a company to further them is a no-no. .
WE all know about 'Company X, where you need to be a born again Christian to work' or 'Company Y where only gay men get employed' or 'Company Z for which the primary requirement seems to be being a raving feminist, preferably lesbian'.
IN the end they fail because these are not the correct criteria for selecting the best people to run a given business.
But they make a lot of mess before they do.
It may well be that he never intended his particular thing to be publicised, but when you are a high up member of any organisation you effectively cease to have a private life.
If he had wanted to donate to a cause, anonymity was the appropriate method.
Anonymity is illegal when you're contributing more than a certain amount to a political campaign. Eich didn't have any choice in whether his support was made public or not.
The political campaign that he contributed to actually won at the ballot - he's being punished for supporting what was a mainstream point of view at the time. I don't see OKCupid boycotting the State of California because a majority of its voters supported exactly the same campaign that Eich made a donation to.
He did not make the donation recently as CEO, he did it years ago PRIVATELY when he was a CTO and without any publicity. Only just recently his donation by check came to light because of some newspaper nosing around who the donors were.
No matter what the cause, all people can donate what they want to who they want as a function of the 1st amendment and they can have and voice their OWN opinion.
Firing someone or forcing them to resign like this is exactly the same as having NAZI's painting the Star of David and "Juden" on your front door and all the bad stuff that follows.
There is NO difference between these actions.
"Firing someone or forcing them to resign like this is exactly the same as having NAZI's painting the Star of David and "Juden" on your front door and all the bad stuff that follows.
There is NO difference between these actions."
Really? It's closer to getting rid of someone who is the leader--- der führer, if you will-- of a company because you don't really want to align your or your company's support with someone who loves NAZI's (sic) and persecuting people he feels are inferior. That is behaviour you really want to discourage sooner, rather than later.
Note: this is sarcasm aimed straight at your idiotic comparison to Nazism and persecution of the Jews (and homosexuals, gypsies, and others that don't get mentioned). I'm sure herr Eichmann, er, mister Eich is not a Nazi and his desire to support knuckle-dragging flat-earth religious right loons stems from honest moral bankruptcy, rather than from some insane desire to round up all the homosexuals and put them into concentration camps.
The amount he donated was enough to require him to name his employer. If I understand correctly, it was the minimum amount required to trigger the requirement.
He could have donated less, a dollar less would not have required the association with his employer.
He can say what he wants, and so can his employees, customers and shareholders.
If your talent threatens to leave because of CEO and users threaten to boycott the product, then the "freedom of speech" ends with shareholders doing what they think is right for the company. Mozilla surely must have plenty gay people working there, surely they don't want to work for CEO who's actively campaigning against their human rights. Like I would never work for some weirdo creationist donating money to destroy science education in schools.
> He can say what he wants, and so can his employees, customers and shareholders.
Indeed, and nobody has said that he can't continue to retain his bigotted, 19th century beliefs.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to work with him.
I realise that a lot of these beliefs are fairly commonplace in the good ol' US of A and pretty unremarkable. In the rest of the world, we kinda got past all that years ago.
who's actively campaigning against their human rights
I thought he was just against gay marriage? Does "marriage" count as a "human right" now? Are there any other administrative procedures that are listed under "human rights" that I should know about?
Indeed, and nobody has said that he can't continue to retain his bigotted, 19th century beliefs.
Bigoted takes one "t".
Thank you for the heartfelt righthink message, btw.
> I thought he was just against gay marriage? Does "marriage" count as a "human right" now?
Where did I use the term human right?
As far as I'm concerned all things should be possible to all people, unless that action impinges on the exercise of the freedoms of other people. That's the very definition of a free country.
This man thinks that some freedoms enjoyed by one section of the community should be off limits to another and that that restriction should be embodied in law. Fair enough so far...it's a free country with freedom of speech. However, he didn't leave it at that. He performed a positive act to further those aims to enforce his "belief" on others.
We've had other people in the past who sought to impose their "beliefs" on others:
1) That black people should sit at the back of the bus or stand if a white person wants to sit.
2) That atheists should be hounded out of the community, because they are the spawn of satan.
3) That evolution shouldn't be taught in school because the good book says something else.
Thank goodness we only have to worry about gay marriage.
But I think that still qualifies him as a twat.
But that's just my opinion.
@skelband The human right implication was made by mraak see the original post "Freedom of speech goes both ways here" suggesting that eich was "...actively campaigning against their human rights." Thereby implying that marriage is a human right.
I think you got confused who was replying to you and who was replying to mraak.
@skelband said "As far as I'm concerned all things should be possible to all people, unless that action impinges on the exercise of the freedoms of other people. That's the very definition of a free country. This man thinks that some freedoms enjoyed by one section of the community should be off limits to another and that that restriction should be embodied in law. Fair enough so far...it's a free country with freedom of speech. However, he didn't leave it at that. He performed a positive act to further those aims to enforce his "belief" on others. We've had other people in the past who sought to impose their "beliefs" on others:"
Oh The irony of the above gay-fascist's opinion! Eich has just had the ultra-bigoted opinions of a minority group thrown at him and lost his job in the process, all in the name of 'right'. Yet those same cretins have abused HIS rights but that's OK - because it's only THEIR opinions that matter, isn't it?
I wonder if he campaigned against polygamy, combined marriages or children brides if that would have raised all this dust. There are countries were both are accepted social rights, and would not be happy it you remove them.
There's nothing as a "human right to marriage" as there's nothing like a "human right to have children".
But let's remove the finger, all this fuss about marriage is really about *money*. The right to "marriage" is really a right to "inheritance" and other ways to obtain easy money or advantages.
But let's remove the finger, all this fuss about marriage is really about *money*.
And the various other benefits afforded to people who are willing to inform the state that they are officially fucking each other.
I see no reason to deny this to any particular pair, or perhaps even group, of consenting adults. That or get rid of all the benefits for everyone, straight or gay. If the religionists want to claim that marriage is their exclusive property, then marriage must be removed from the state as an institution and contained solely within the church (temple, mosque, coven, whatever).
Anything else is theocracy.
Let's grant your "there is no human right to marriage" thesis, for the sake of argument. However, there is a _legal_ right to marriage, as long as you meet certain criteria (like not already being married, being over a certain age, etc).
And once married, there are a vast number of privileges and advantages available which are not afforded to unmarried people. Despite your claim about money, consider who gets to make medical decisions for someone incapable of making them for themselves. Sure, there are ways to circumvent the problem, but why should one group have to jump through hoops because they are denied the ability to marry who they want?
Fun fact: Prop 8 (supported by Eich-the-useless-CEO) was a reaction to the previous "Knight Initiative" (Prop 22) which was passed in 2000 and struck down as unconstitutional in 2008. Prop 22 was passed on March 7, 2000; the Fox TV show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" aired on February 15th, and the "marriage" was annulled on April 5th. Obviously, people in California cared deeply about "traditional marriage".
Another fun fact: "traditional marriage" obviously includes arranged marriages and child marriages.
Not money, no (although it is a factor, I don't belive it's the biggest one)
It's more about the right to visit your spouse in the emergency room (where only family members are allowed, so a "friend" wouldn't be)
It's about the right to descide for your spouse, if said spouse is incapacitated (like a partner in a marraige is allowed to do)
It's about beeing allowed to care for the children of your significant other, if something happens to them as well: Say one part of a gay pair has a child (by adoption or sperm donation or what ever), the other can not legaly adopt said child. Now something happens to the one with the child. In a marriage the responsibility for said child would go to the other spouse. Without marriage the responsibilty will go to the state.... So in one full sweep the child looses both it's parents and goes into the foster program.
And it is about making an official commitment in a way the way that they were brought up in.
There is a HUGE difference between RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE and LEGAL (Think City Hall) MARRIAGE.
THESE TWO NEED TO BE SEPARATED FROM EACHOTHER!!!!!!!!!
City Hall is available to almost anyone REGARDLESS of BELIEF STRUCTURE in many places.
This would remove some of the vehemence from the arguement!
In the rest of the world
Just like some Americans need to learn that the world does not begin and end between Point Udall and West Quoddy Head, I think some others need to learn that "rest of the world" is not solely contained within a small archipelago of islands off the North of France with dismally shit weather.
Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go.
> Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go.
Unfortunately, I fear you may be right.
Like cigarettes, we have exported our despicable Christian religious ideas to the continent of Africa where people are more afraid of what God will think about them using condoms than catching Aids.
Oh and uptightness about sexual matters are a fundamentally Christian idea to do with shame about our bodies and original sin. We could do with losing that particular religious stupidity while we're at it.
"Oh and uptightness about sexual matters are a fundamentally Christian idea to do with shame about our bodies and original sin."
Oh, I don't know, i'm sure that there have been many other religions throughout history and around the world that have propogated that particular attitude. Don't be so sure that christianity can claim all the credit for that one.
"Unfortunately there is more than one country where the official view is somewhere between Medieval and Victorian as far as attitudes towards sex and intimate relationships go."
Indeed, if you look at some of the many things that ARE legal in the United States compared to many other countries outside of the 'west' hegemony, you'd realise just how progressive they really are. Even the simple fact that so many people have the right to have so many different opinions for one.
Some people can, and some people can't, leave their beliefs as a private individual at home when they go to work. If he was one of the former group, then it was wrong to call for his resignation. If one of the latter group, it's his employees who shouuld have led the campaign to oust him.
In my book I'll contrast the speed with which he resigned to save his company embarassment (perhaps he should have toughed it out?), with a certain MP who resigned today after fighting an unjustifiable, legalistic, and threatening battle with the media over the facts of her abuse of the house of commons expenses system. I know who I'd rather work under!
How is having the state recognize your relationship with another as a legally binding contract a human right?
He donated in support of keeping a narrow definition of marriage. It does not make him homophobic. It does not constitute "...actively campaigning against their human rights. "
In my country there is a prominent federal politician who is openly lesbien, but she has doesn't support the introduction of marriage equality laws. I going to assume that she's not a homophobe either.
Personal opinion disclaimer: I think marriage is not what many people beleive it is. It is state recognition of a relationship as a legal contract between two people in a consensual relationship. I think if you are going to recognize male/female relationships this way that should be extended to m/m and f/f relationships too, he'll while we're at it if people want polygamist marriages let them m/m/m, f/f/m/m any combination you like. Because I also beleive that you don't need state recognition to be committed in your relationship with another and people both sides should step back and realise that they can already have the bit that matters, the relationship, and that the bit they are fighting over is a trivial aside.
Yeah, they have the relationship, but they don't have the state given rights to go with it.
They can't visit their love in the ER, or make medical descions for them if they are incapacitated. If partner A has a child and something happends to this partner, Partner B can not take over the care for the child.
It's not about beeing allowed to go into a church and have some person say a few words, it's about the rights that come with it.
So, he wasn't campaigning against their human rights, "just" against their state rights.
A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before [New Mexico's] state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” (the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage). The couple had no difficulty finding another photographer willing to accept payment for that service...
In its ruling upholding the actions of New Mexico’s “human rights” soviet, the State Supreme Court claimed that the lesbian couple had a right “to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation.” This assumes that business owners like Huguenin have a duty to provide such services – and no right to decline participation in that transaction. In other words, involuntary servitude – despite being explicitly banned by the 13th Amendment – is justified in the service of “anti-discrimination” policy.
Attorneys on behalf of Huguenin appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court, contending that it violated the free speech and religious liberty “guarantees” of the First Amendment – which it manifestly did. Huguenin’s legal counsel could have argued that the state’s Human Rights Act — which was amended in 2003 to include “sexual orientation” within the protected categories — represents a wholesale violation of property rights. This argument would only find traction, unfortunately, in a society where property rights are properly understood.
Huguenin’s counsel could have pointed out that the preferential treatment of property owners such as Mr. Darden [a hairdresser who would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage with no ill effects] – who is allowed to discriminate against some customers on ideological grounds – violates the principle of equal protection under the law. But such preferential treatment is the entire point of “civil rights” enactments.
The US Supreme Court has declined Hugeunin’s appeal, tacitly ratifying the state supreme court’s endorsement of involuntary servitude in the name of “tolerance.”
All of this outraged entitled vocalatory minomajority is very confusing,
I think you'd make a better case if you didn't use loaded terms like "human rights soviet", and at least acknowledge that a lot of the more sympathetic coverage to this is coming from LGBT news sources. Yes, really.
You might also want to mention that at least one of the judges described the ruling as "sobering", or that the backlash this is likely going to cause is probably going to bring about a change in New Mexico's state law.
Though I do have to wonder what the reaction would have been if Ms Hugeunin had refused to photograph a wedding between two black people?
If you won't use a browser made by a company/organization that supports gay marriage, you can't use Firefox, Chrome, IE or Safari. What's that leave? Is Opera still around? No matter, pretty sure Norway is firmly in support of gay marriage.
If they wanted to boycott it because the pressure for his ouster was silencing free speech, they'd garner more support along with having some browser choices available to them.
Maybe the Koch brothers can take a break from spending millions on attack ads in the US and fund a browser built with conservative values, so when you try to visit msnbc.com it'll take you to foxnews.com, and when you try to visit huffingtonpost.com it'll take you to drudgereport.com :)
Fuckwit, the boycott against Mozilla has nothing to do with support or non-support of homosexual marriage. It is all about a company the gave in to fascists urging prosecution of a thoughtcrime. What's worse it was a thoughtcrime from 2008 when he simply went along with one Barack Obama's view of homosexual marriage. Then he wouldn't apologize, whoopy shit.
I deleted Mozilla products from my computers due to the intolerance of the organization.
I believe an organization and individual may associate with whomever they chose, or not, for any reason. Including termination for any reason including race, sex, religion, or politics. And of course that applies in both directions.
Opera is OK so far. Haven't figured out how to make it open with a blank screen. Haven't figured out how to disable the damned tabs. Doesn't have the rough user interface edges of Firefox. Or the really awful Thunderbird.
Ahem. Firefox doesn't have the "really awful" Thunderbird either.
The whole point of Firefox and Thunderbird, back when Firefox was called Firebird, before Pontiac went full retard on them, was to separate the various Mozilla components into more managable chunks.
The gay community is acting like McCarthy. Everybody not thinking the way they like must lose its job and be "ostracized". That's something US already underwent in the '50s, and it wasn't a nice period. Even McCarthy had the excuse it had to protect US from communists, but he did like a communist. Gays are acting like McCarthy... and maybe it's also a way to get to well paid jobs easily just crying "look! it hates gays!" - next everybody thinking gay marriages is wrong shall wear a yellow star? Or be sent to some cold place to be "re-educated"?
And if somebody next would like to marry his or her cat, dog or horse? Why not? Why gender is ok, genus is not? There are also many different type of marriages we think are not appropriate - think incest, polygamy, ecc. ecc. - beware of opening the Pandora Box just because some easy money...
Removed Firefox from my PC.
And if somebody next would like to marry his or her cat, dog or horse? Why not?
Come on, really? Do you know how recently it was that certain US states actually banned bestiality?
A clue: Not all of them have.
Seriously, stop channeling Santorum. It makes you look silly, as amusing as it is to watch.
> And if somebody next would like to marry his or her cat, dog or horse? Why not?
Well if the cat, dog or horse can consent, then why not indeed? Good luck with that.
It's not all *that* long ago when certain induhviduals in the US though that there was very little difference between bestiality and mixed couples.
If, in the near future, we are visited by aliens, we'll be having exactly the same conversation about "mixed" marriages then no doubt :D
Oh FFS, are you people still dragging out the old "if it's ok for gays to marry then why not an animal" argument. First off, WTF is it with your obsessions with wanting to marry animals. It's a ridiculous argument. Animals for a start are not consenting humans and quite frankly it's just a stupid argument.
"First off, WTF is it with your obsessions with wanting to marry animals. It's a ridiculous argument. "
Not so, i would quite gladly marry my cat before I would marry some people ;-)
And don't say - that's bestiality ! Sex is not a compulsory component of marriage. I know plenty of married couples that don't have sexual relations.
Hmmm... one of the largest financial backers of Prop 8 ("no marriage for gays because gay is icky and everybody knows if you let gays marry next thing that'll happen is that we'll be forced to gay-marry someone!") was those whacky Mormons.
Also known as "LDS".
Now, should a church be sticking it's tax-advantaged nose into politics? Here's a hint: no.
You can spend all the money you like on political stuff, but you can't do it tax-free.
Naughty LDS. Perhaps we should strip their tax-free status?
If you try to strip the tax free status of one church you'll have to strip them all because the Catholic Church is FAR more politically active than the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Bloody good idea actually. I don't know how this would threaten your ability to believe in whatever fairies you like, though.
I see no reason why churches should be tax exempt. I see no reason why churches should get special treatment.
Consider the current farcical situation at the US Supreme Court, where a bunch of employers are claiming to be exempted for aspects of the law because it allegedly violates their alleged religious beliefs (specifically, it requires them to provide insurance that covers contraception, etc.).
But consider the position of a sincere pacifist. Could be a sincere atheist, or perhaps a Quaker. Do they get to refrain from paying taxes that fund the military? If not, why not?
Religion can be great. Most churches could be wiped from the face of the earth with a net benefit to all mankind.
The cat/dog/horse argument is frequently expounded but always COMPLETELY misses the point.
The claim of those who support marriage equality is that if two people are consenting, loving adults, then:
a.) They should be able to marry, and;
b.) Whose business is it anyway?
The central premise - consenting adults - completely voids the argument about marrying animals.
I truly do believe in your right to hold whatever stance you wish on marriage, but when arguing the point with others, you should use logical arguments.
In this case, you use a slippery slope argument - asserting that allowing LGBT marriage will open (has opened?) a 'Pandora['s] Box', leading to worse. This is a valid argument if you can show that there is any causal link between allowing consenting human adults to marry regardless of gender/sexuality and allowing a human to marry a non-consenting, non-human 'partner'.
No such link has yet been found.
At any rate, the argument is a bit strange as surely marriage is not the core problem but sex. After all, bestiality isn't only confined to 'marriage', just as incest isn't.
If you accept that sex between consenting adults - regardless of gender/sexuality - is lawful, then you have already made a massive distinction between allowing LGBT marriages and allowing inter-species marriages, thus weakening your slippery slope argument.
If, however, you don't think homosexuality should be legal then just say so, at which point the whole marriage argument can be laid aside as there is a bigger discussion to be had.
That all said, what Eich did was not merely show his support for 'one-man-one-woman' but to support the removal of an existing right that flows from the equal rights protections in the Californian Constitution.
The gay community is several percent of the human race (many of whom feel obliged to conceal the fact). What you mean is that a small, vociferous, extremist minority of the gay community is acting like McCarthy.
Can you name any group of people numbered in the millions, which does NOT have an organised and extremist group claiming to be acting on behalf of the other millions when in fact it's just pushing its own agenda?
Don't be silly, and put Firefox back (unless you actually prefer some other browser, in which case don't claim you removed Firefox as a protest).
There is absolutely no restriction on free speech involved here.
He is, and always has been, free to say exactly what he wants.
He does not, however, have the right to demand that anyone gives him a platform for such speech. No newspaper is required to print his words, for instance.
And nobody is required to listen. If you stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA he cannot force you to hear.
You are 100% correct but I'd also say this is not about HIS free speech, it's now about everyone else's. He has already made his donation and laid open his views through that donation, so he already made his free speech and is still free to continue doing so. Now we are using our free speech and OK Cupid are using their free speech to lay out our views, free speech is a two way street. He made a donation... we made a protest.
You are implying that Eich made a mistake.
Has he ever said, that he thinks he did?
I too belive, that there is no restriction of free speach involved here.
He spoke through his actions(donating), okcupid spoke through its actions(asking for people to stop using FF), many users spoke through their actions(uninstalling or installing FF).
Everyone was always free to do and say what they wanted and act accordingly.
Personally (and speaking as a bisexual), I think his resigning wasn't a good move.
He should have given a press statement about where he wants to lead the company and also address this controversy. He should have made his point of view crystal clear (Is he still against equal rights for all, or not?), explained his reasoning and then let the customers vote for two weeks. If more then 50% of those that bothered to vote would want to oust him, he should have gone. If more then 50% wanted him to stay, he should have stayed.
That would also have shown everyone how many users are acutually interested in this topic (I doubt that many more then 2% of all FF users would have botherd to vote at all, frankly).
".....He should have...." He should have played at their level and wrote a little bit of code into Firefox that detected when users tried to view OKCupid's website, and instead flashed up a message saying "Are you really that sad and desperate that you need online dating? Wouldn't it be better you just bypassed the disappointment and admitted you're just ugly? It's not likely you're going to find 'real love' on a site like this anyway. It's probably best you just stay at home and keep your ugly, unappealling ass indoors where it is less likely to offend those of us that can pull", along with links to sites for delivery groceries and self-help groups.
Eich was never going to get a chance to do anything, it is abundantly clear from their actions that the gay crusaders were not going to be happy until they had crucified him.
I think these are important arguments to have. (Even if they can be tiring and repetitive.)
It is good that in a modern society we are grappling with the intersection of freedom and equality. It is not an easy knot to cut.
I think one crucial point, however, is that Eich was not employed as a programmer or designer or cafeteria worker - he was employed to be the CEO; the literal and figurative head of the company. This makes his views more relevant than those of any other employee of the company.
In fairness to Eich, he very explicitly stated his commitment to uphold the current policies of Mozilla which, amongst other things, provides benefits to same-sex (and other non-married) partners equal to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. In some states this is mandatory but Mozilla does this across the board and Eich has committed to this policy.
Swinging back the other way, however, what Eich was doing in backing Prop 8 was not 'freedom of speech' per se.
Freedom of speech is saying "I support the concept of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman". Proposition 8 aimed to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION of the state of California so that an existing right (to marry) be expressly denied to those falling outside the scope of the definition supplied in the proposition - one man, one woman.
In 2008 the Supreme Court of California found that equal access to marriage was a fundamental right ensured by the constitution of the state. This meant that previous laws limiting access to marriage on the basis of sexuality or gender were ruled unconstitutional and voided as they violated the rights of those groups to equal treatment.
From this came Proposition 8; as marriage discrimination was found to be unconstitutional, the backers of Prop 8 aimed to change the constitution to remove that right.
This is the key thing here - Brendan Eich supported (and presumably still supports) the removal of an existing, constitutionally-protected right of of the 'LGBT community' - the constitution of California guarantees that right based on the fundamental equality of LGBT couples and heterosexual couples. Backing the removal of that right (which is exactly what the proposition did) is, by extension, a statement that one believes LGBT couples (and thus individuals) are not equal.
That would seem very much at odds with Mozilla's identity.
Again, Eich did not simply support 'traditional marriage' - he supported the removal of an existing right flowing from, and therefore protected by, the equal rights provisions of the constitution of the state of California.
He was not opposing a law to make marriage legal for non-heterosexual couples; he was supporting a watering-down of existing equal-right protections.
I think there is a key point here where Eich has, for whatever reason, decided to dig in.
The courts have ruled that prop 8 is unconstitutional, and is a denial of rights.
Eich could have chosen to say "the courts have ruled, and in retrospect prop 8 was a mistake".
He could have said "the courts have spoken and I will not support any further measures or groups whose goal is to make same-sex marriage illegal".
He hasn't done that. He still, based on his responses to this controversy, believes that gays should not be allowed to marry and by implication reserved the right to support further efforts to deny that right. In spite of the court rulings.
Only one way to read that: "My religious beliefs are more important than other people's rights, or what the courts of our country say".
Is that really somebody you want in a position of power in your company? Somebody that inflexible?
So, you will then agree that if another court decision would overturn the previous one and the ban on gay marriage will be found constitutional, you will have to be fired from your job unless you publicly declare that you now understand that gay marriage is wrong and undertake to never support it again?
If you're responding to me then you have completely missed my point. (I accept that may be my fault more than yours.)
It isn't about gay marriage being right or 'wrong'.
It's about Mozilla holding one position and then having a CEO who not only supports the opposite position but financially contributed to a campaign with the aim of supplanting Mozilla's position with his own, opposing one*.
Remove the equal rights component and it barely changes the situation - he financially supported a group campaigning against Mozilla's stated position.
Feeding off another response, if you take a company that professes strong anti-firearm sentiments then it's not really a good look to have a CEO who is a member of the NRA. A normal employee, sure - their job is to, well, just do their job. A CEO must be the public face of the company and thus his/her views must align with the company's.
* - The reason I went to the detail I did was not to intentionally side-track onto gay marriage, but to show the situation in the context of exactly what Eich was supporting and why that was so different to Mozilla's position. Mozilla believe equal-rights extends to all areas of life for all people regardless of race/gender/sexuality/etc... Eich believes that equal rights should NOT extend to all areas. It might just be one area - marriage - and one group - non-heterosexual couples - but that is a BIG issue and very much in the public eye. CEO, not janitor, remember - not a good look.
".....Eich believes that equal rights should NOT extend to all areas....." Yes, but you failed to demonstrate that Eich had let his views in any way negatively impact either his work as CEO at Mozilla or his relationship and dealings with LGBT employees. In short, you want him to lose the job because YOU believe he MAY do something in the future, rather than actually being able to show evidence either of a 'bad' action or even intent to act 'badly' in said role. In other words, he has no presumption of innocence simply because you don't want to extend him that right because he previously held a view in conflict with your own - so YOU are the one abusing an actual right, Eich's.
Matt . . .
". . . you failed to demonstrate that Eich had let his views in any way negatively impact either his work as CEO at Mozilla or his relationship and dealings with LGBT employees. In short, you want him to lose the job because YOU believe he MAY do something in the future . . ."
And how exactly have YOU demonstrated that I "want him to lose the job"?
I've read through my posts again, just to be sure, and I really can't find anything that even you could construe as me "want[ing] him to lose the job". Nor is there even a hint that I am talking about things he may do "In the future".
Where have you pulled these assertions from?
Something about motes and beams in there, mate.
You have missed my point - seemingly deliberately. It was, just so we are clear, that public image is important for a CEO and recent events have shown a large backlash against Eich based on his views and actions, which are demonstrably in opposition with the views of Mozilla.
It is important for companies to have clear, unambiguous messages delivered by a 'united front'. Once Eich's contribution to Prop 8 became known, there was always going to be a problem. If YOU can't see that then fine, but don't assume that just because YOU think it isn't a problem, that no one else does.
We, as democracies, routinely choose candidates and vote out politicians for things they say or have done that otherwise don't effect their performance in the job. That YOU might focus solely on actions is great but that is far from the norm.
Mozilla knows understands that and Eich understands that; it doesn't really matter if you do or not.
".....public image is important for a CEO....." And for a company, hence my unease with the rapidity with which not only the rest of the Mozilla board caved and failed to support Eich, but also how easy it was for the gay crusaders to whip up a mob. I am not against gay marriage (though I can find no actual logical reason why the civil union between two men or two women should be granted the status of a 'marriage', but if it keeps The Gays happy then my thoughts are pretty much "whatever"), but I am against witch-hunt mob politics and therefore very much against the way Eich has been hounded out of a job he seems very technically qualified for, simply because he partook of the democratic process six years ago. And that is the key point for me - Eich has done and said NOTHING since that even hints of homophobia, yet The Gays cannot let it go.
".....recent events have shown a large backlash against Eich based on his views and actions...." Based on his PRESUMED views and a SINGLE action SIX YEARS AGO! To brand Eich as unsuitable for the post of CEO is therefore little more than vindictive.
".....which are demonstrably in opposition with the views of Mozilla....." And there you fail again - you cannot demonstrate Eich's views at the time of his appointment to CEO were in conflict with Mozilla's because (unless you have mind-reading skills) you haven't the foggiest notion what Eich's views are today, you are basing that PRESUMPTION on what happened six years ago.
I've been a user of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox since the version0.8 but now the yellow tone of the still cute icon is the one of cowardice that is creeping up slowly but surely. Future is no longer what it used to be. Coming from Mozilla the word freedom will be nothing more than a shallow PR buzzword.
Whatever your stance, the fact is that Eich was exercising his democratic right to support a particular position.
It just turns out, however, that that position was to REMOVE existing rights for a specific group of the population (non-heterosexuals). Prior to prop 8, straight and gay* couples were on an equal footing regarding marriage. Prop 8 aimed to change that so that gay people were unequal, by removing one of their rights - the right to marry.
How anyone, personally, feels about marriage is irrelevant - the constitution of California grants gay people the same rights as straight people and that includes the right to marry.
It's really very little different than trying to get a constitution changed to say that religion should be defined as the Christian religion only. People can still worship in their own homes but they won't get any of the benefits of being an organised religion.
You can call it a 'philosophical system' if you want - just don't call it religion because that's a special term that only applies to our beliefs.
It's a bit of a silly comparison but that's the point and illustrates the kind of thing Eich was supporting.
Now, I am not saying he had no right to support such a proposal - he did and does - but that proposal was, and is, unconstitutional as it attempted to deprive a portion of the population of California of a "basic civil right" which cannot be withheld on the basis of sexual orientation.
That's not my view - that's the view of the supreme court of California in their role as interpreters of the constitution of the state.
Eich is then identified as someone who wanted to deny a constitutionally-protected right on the basis of sexual orientation.
* - used for convenience . . .
If they are CEOs for a companies that professes as a company identity the inalienable right to own firearms then I suspect they most certainly would face similar pressure from their communities.
That's the thing people are missing here.
What Brendan Eich did is entirely within his rights as a citizen in a democracy. He is allowed to hold those views, allowed to campaign for those views and allowed to financially support others who share those views. He is allowed to protest and march and rant and rave and persuade and criticise and expound and argue for the constitution to be changed to explicitly exclude non-heterosexual couples from marriage.
The 'community' however, is also entirely within its rights and are equally allowed to campaign and protest and rant and rave and criticise and argue for Eich's removal.
As a CEO, your views and attitude dictate the tone of the company, not only in the eyes of the staff but of the consumers/users/community. You are not a normal employee and your public image can have as much effect on the company as your boardroom decisions.
Boil it down to the essentials:
- Mozilla are a company.
- Brendan Eich was the figurative and literal head of that company
- Mozilla, as a company, have strongly-expressed views
- Brendan Eich has views diametrically opposed*
Free speech/democracy/equal rights aside - do you really think that is a tenable position?
* - Mozilla believe that gay couples should be able to marry, Brendan Eich believes they should not be able to marry.
I have been a Firefox and Thunderbird user since long before they were separated from the main suite; I had switched mail clients a few month ago due to thunderbird becoming a right pain in the arse in resource-constrained environments and I was on the verge of switching browsers because of the growing bloat. This scandal pushed me over the edge, all my machines are now Mozilla-free.
The only thing that bothers me a bit is that some clueless morons may associate me with the christian bigots calling for the boycott ("if you're not with us you're against us" and all that bullshit). But then again I don't care terribly much about what clueless morons think of me.
Some supporters of Prop 8 would be homophobes and therefore most certainly bigots. It doesn't follow, however, that to support Prop 8 you must be a bigot or that in supporting it you become a bigot.
The following line of reasoning is an entirely plausible reason to support Proposition 8 and involves no fear or hatred or distrust or prejudice:
* Marriage is a religious institution
* Religious texts provide the template of man + woman
* Marriage should therefore adhere to the religious template
Again, there is nothing in that which can be called bigoted as nothing in it requires or even implies that the holder of such a belief treats or views no-heterosexual people with any fear or hatred.
Not supporting bigots is well and good but be careful not to judge someone unfairly based on a sweeping characterisation of their motives, which you are unlikely to know.
I think you must have misread my comment - go back and re-read it. I never asserted that marriage is a religious institution.
What I was saying is that such a belief is perfectly valid reason for opposing gay marriage and that it does not imply bigotry. Opposing gay marriage becomes a perfectly logical argument based on that premise. The argument then becomes around whether marriage really is a specifically and intrinsically religious institution.
I, personally, am of the opinion that marriage is not a specifically religious institution. If that is really the argument being used then such an opponent of gay marriage should also, logically, oppose all non-religious marriages, insisting that a marriage is only, well, a 'marriage' if conducted by a religious leader in accordance with religious rites.
Of course, I can see the potential response, which might be that at least a man + woman marrying are still following god's template and may yet accept god into their marriage, whereas a homosexual couple could never truly accept god into their marriage because they are not following his template.
Again, to be clear, I don't personally believe that but arguing for 'traditional' marriage on religious grounds does not mean you hate homosexuals any more than arguing for abstinence until marriage means you hate sex.
Nothing to complain about when homosexuals get married when it's an outdoor ceremony or a civil union in a registry office or any other stuff along those lines. Only way I'm against gay marriage is a church wedding, and that's purely because I feel it's more about 'sticking it to the christians' than about the principle of it.
Christianity has hated on gays for well, ever. I don't see any reason other than "nur nur you can't stop me" for wanting to get married where everyone hates you.
"Christianity" is really a whole bunch of religions that all share a common root. You only need to go to certain bits of Ireland to see just how similar two particular sects of Christianity think they are to each other.
Go to the Westboro Baptist Church, and they'll soon tell you what they think of the evil tools of Satan.
On the other hand, the local C of E vicar around here is quite the effeminate chap, and so's his boyfriend.
Doesn't stop me from calling religion in general a bunch of hocus pocus, but I'm a lot less likely to want to stove the local vicar's face in than any of the WBC lot. Hey, the vicarage is all wifi'd up because of me. Bloody thick walls in that place. Utter nightmare without a repeater plugged into the network.
Yes, marriage is a human right and has been recognised as such for nearly 66 years. And there is nothing in article 16 about the parties having to be of different genders.
If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. What anyone else does is none of your ******* business.
As for Eich: his free speech rights entitle him to support bigotry, mine entitle me to boycott companies that support him.
It's not just right wing bigots who have rights - despite the current Supreme Court's best efforts.
Please don't drag the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into this - you undermine the very Universality that makes it such a powerful instrument by picking and choosing meanings that support your position, while ignoring the simple fact that when it was adopted in 1948, the people who wrote and signed it would not have accepted that it included the right for men to marry men and women to marry women.
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."
Article 16 is the only article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that refers to "Men and women". It is disingenuous to suggest that the right to marry was understood to be an individual right - it was clearly seen as a right that only existed by men and women acting together.
It wasn't considered necessary to explicitly define Marriage, because everyone already knew what it meant. And it's simply dishonest to suggest otherwise, or to claim that the writers and signers supported same sex marriage.
"Universal Rights" that turn out not to be so Universal after all, because they change over time, aren't a strong basis for any case. Whatever your position on the issue of same sex marriage, diluting the value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by taking a "whatever you're having yourself" approach to interpreting it doesn't do anyone any favors.
It's also worth noting that Article 16 doesn't explicitly limit marriage to two people (because nobody thought they needed to), so using the Declaration as the basis for supporting same-sex marriage on the basis that it does define marriage as between one man and one woman is also an implicit argument in favor of polygamy. That's just another example of the problems with using the UDHR as the basis of your support for same-sex marriage
Comments by Brendan Eich over a blog post via Planet Mozilla,
In reply to the blogger he writes,
April 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm
David, can you please stop running all over the blogosphere writing things you do not know to be true?
No one tried to convince me to stay as CEO. My previous position was not just CTO, it was also SVP Engineering — a position eliminated in a reorg I had just done.
What “key position” am I “active” in now, pray tell?
Best to stick to what you know to be true.
Think Mozilla's nightmares have just come true.
Q: Was Brendan asked to resign by the Board?
A: No. In fact, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another role. Brendan decided that it was better for himself and for Mozilla to sever all ties, at least for now.
"An honorable man . . ."
I heartily agree. He realised that his appointment as CEO was not in the best interests of the company and so stepped-down.
Companies can use their 'ethics' as a brand differentiator because many people will want to choose a product/company/service that aligns with their own views, even if it doesn't really affect the finished 'product'.
That means that in such companies, the image is very important.
Imagine a company that, as part of their corporate image, are very environmentally minded - they implement all manner of policies to reduce emissions, plant trees and have a factory with one of those gardens for a roof and re-use waste water for heating systems and so on. None of that affects the end product they sell but a customers may well choose that brand over another because of their 'green' image.
Now, image that company appoints a CEO and it is found out that he/she is a climate change 'denier' who has supports campaigns against green initiatives.
That company is now less able to leverage it's 'green credentials' as a way of attracting customers and thus the CEO has had a negative impact on the company even before making the first decision.
"....Now, image that company appoints a CEO and it is found out that he/she is a climate change 'denier' who has supports campaigns against green initiatives....." The comparison would only be valid if you had some proof of how Eich had let his beliefs adversely affect either the company or its employees whilst in the role. There appears to be zero evidence of such, so in essence you are condemning Eich for what he MIGHT be thinking about doing some time in the future. That is just paranoiad-driven "right-think" dressed up as legitimate concern.
Clearly Mozilla is damned / damned on this one. But the lesson to CEOs and other media-magnet corner-office dwellers, whether in publicly traded or private companies, commerce or government, is pretty clear: the "man in the street" sizing you up doesn't distinguish between your public actions and your private ones. As has been wisely written, no good deed goes unpunished. You may think it's a good deed you've done; someone else may have a differing view. If you care about the possible impact on your company, think twice.
I've seen a lot of assertions about what should or shouldn't be allowed, but this, the one commentary I've seen referencing actual California employment law, hasn't gotten nearly enough attention:
"He was not terminated. He quit. Do you understand the difference?" He was put in a position where he had no choice but to resign. In the UK that would be constructive dismissal, I'm not certain of the exact equivalent under Californian law, but good ol' Wikipedia has the following:
"In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."
Mozilla's position and statements - basically saying Eich did wrong, "think of the company" - made Eich's position untenable, ergo they did not support him as they should have under the stated Californian employment laws, and did put him in a position where resignation was the only real option.
Dear Petrea Mitchell...
The reason it hasn't "gotten" attention is that it's 100% completely irrelevant.
Had Eich been fired, it may have been. But he wasn't, he quit.
And had Eich been fired _for supporting Prop 8_ (although he wasn't fired at all), then it may have been relevant; but had he been fired (although he wasn't) for being an incompetent CEO in his handling of the Prop-8-support-issue it would not have been relevant.
Glad to help.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019